论违法建筑的私法地位  

The Private Law Status of Illegal Construction

作　　者：史鉴昊 沈雅琴 SHI Jian-hao;SHEN Ya-qin(School of Law,Nanjing University,Nanjing,Jiangsu 210000,China)

机构地区：[1]南京大学法学院,江苏南京210000

出　　处：《湖北职业技术学院学报》2022年第4期89-94,共6页Journal of Hubei Polytechnic Institute

摘　　要：在我国的物权法领域中,违法建筑的私法地位颇有争议。现有的司法实践倾向于加强对建筑合法性的举证要求,不承认违法建造人可以取得所有权。违法建筑的法律地位固应低于合法建筑,但无权利说不利于建造人利益的保护;占有说难以解释其权源问题,所受保护也较为有限;动产所有权说或是扭曲了民法上有关物的分类的原有逻辑,或是误读了动产与不动产的区分标准。我国实证法的规定与不动产的本质决定了违法建筑仍然是不动产。其所有权是建造人基于事实行为而取得的。公法上的管制并不否定权利的取得,只是该所有权附有相应的公法义务。The private law status of illegal construction is controversial in the field of real right law in China. The existing judicial practice tends to strengthen the evidentiary requirements of proof of the "legality" of the building and does not recognize that the illegal builder can acquire ownership. The legal status of illegal buildings should be lower than that of legal buildings, but the no-right theory is not conducive to the protection of the builder’s interests. The possession theory is difficult to explain the source of rights and the protection is limited. The chattel ownership theory either distorts the original logic of the civil law classification of res or misinterprets the criteria for distinguishing between real estate and chattel. Chinese positive law and the essence of real estate determine that illegal buildings are still real estate. The ownership is acquired by the builder based on the factual behaviors. Although the control in public law does not deny the acquisition of rights, the ownership comes with corresponding public law obligations.

关 键 词：违法建筑 所有权 不动产 动产 

分 类 号：D923.2[政治法律—民商法学]